devora wrote:Haven’t heard a good Golem story since sittin’ on Daddy’s knee. Thing about his one was, if ya substitute “neighbor’s dog” for Golem, it just seems like a basic “neighbors are a pain and can be cruel” story that had fantasy elements forced into it. Did I miss something? I mean, if you’re gonna put Golem in, ought there not to be something Golemesque (SP?!) about its plight?

All that said, I enjoyed it, as usual.

Great point. I liked the Golem story from Eastern Europe where the guy that brings the Golem to life ends up getting squashed to death by the Golem. Anyone know which story I'm referring to? I can't remember all the details, but I have a picture next to the Golem statue.

One day he will look into what a ‘stigmata’ really is; for now, it is his trump card for getting out of work. He simply says ‘stigmata’ and they say ‘shit, hope you feel better soon.’ End of story.

F5iver wrote:As long as you're willing to entertain the thought of self-replicating computer programs as being alive. They takes bites of bits and turn them into new programs. Yay!

A computer program does not replicate itself. The computer on which it is running replicates it. A program is just a list of instructions until an external agent comes along, reads them and follows them.

If a self-replicating computer program is alive, then so is a piece of paper on which is written "Copy these words onto another sheet." The paper cannot copy itself: It has to wait for a someone who is literate an has a pencil. A computer program is the same.

So does it follow that the information in DNA does not replicate itself, The computer on which the DNA is running (i.e. the physical universe which contains the DNA) reads the instructions on the DNA and executes them, thereby replicating the DNA? In this sense, are we any more alive than the self-replicating code in the computer, just with more data storage and bandwidth?

strawman wrote:I can't agree. Following the same logic, people are obligated to supportively interact with any needy person who becomes obsessed with them.
Unless you're saying we should treat animals better than humans. Which I think you'd get more support for Tribbles than Wandering Spiders.

First of all, I definately don't think that animals should be treated better than humans.
Second, a contract is an agreement between two parties, while stalking can be viewed as a service at best, not a right.
The contract with the animal is "you provide me with companionship and alert me to danger, and I'll provide you with food, shelter, etc."
Random strangers don't provide these same services, and so don't have the same rights to make demands on our resourses.

No, we're not talking about RANDOM strangers here. We're talking about the one from the stalking service, the one who was supposed to be a little fling with no strings attached, but instead they turn into Glen Close or Art Garfunkel, and they OWN you, with their big, droopy Mexican-orphan-on-velvet eyes. You know the ones I'm talking about. They're YOUR kids.

Never judge anyone until you have biopsied their brain.

"Be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle."
Known Some Call Is Air Am

ROU Killing Time wrote:So does it follow that the information in DNA does not replicate itself, The computer on which the DNA is running (i.e. the physical universe which contains the DNA) reads the instructions on the DNA and executes them, thereby replicating the DNA? In this sense, are we any more alive than the self-replicating code in the computer, just with more data storage and bandwidth?

The universe does not read DNA. Special DNA reading machines within cells read DNA.

The really interesting thing–the thing unique to living things–is that the instructions tell how to build machines for reading instructions. Our hypothetic piece of paper not only has the instructions "copy this" written on it, it also has instructions on how to construct the eyes to read the paper and the hands to do the copying. The program has instructions for building the computer on which it must run.

But without a preexisting computer, the program cannot be executed. But without a preexisting program, the computer has nothing to execute. But without a preexisting computer, the program cannot be executed. But without a preexisting program, the computer has nothing to execute. But without a preexisting computer, the program cannot be executed. But without a preexisting program, the computer has nothing to execute. But without a preexisting computer, the program cannot be executed. But without a preexisting program, the computer has nothing to execute.

I'm not an animal rights activist by any means, but I think you should be nice to animals.

Growing up we had a neighbor with a tiny yard and a giant great dane. It never seemed happy, always whimpering and sad. They took it on walks for sure, but I don't think it was enough.

Of course, a golem isn't an animal, it is a created thing, but I think the same concept applies because it was created with emotions. If they got a emotionless golem, all problems solved, then it would meet everyone's needs, including it's own.

I'm sorry, but I find the idea of creating a thing and giving it a single human characteristic - that of emotional neediness - simply skeeves me to no end. I would assume that if you can insert an animating charm of choice, it would be nobler to create a golem using the Golden Rule, rather than one that is a constant reminder of our neighbor's failure to live up to it, and the resulting temptation for us to judge our neighbor.

Never judge anyone until you have biopsied their brain.

"Be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle."
Known Some Call Is Air Am

tastycakes wrote:I liked the Golem story from Eastern Europe where the guy that brings the Golem to life ends up getting squashed to death by the Golem. Anyone know which story I'm referring to? I can't remember all the details, but I have a picture next to the Golem statue.

I know the one you're talking about, though I can't for the life of me remember when I read it... Then again, I spent much of the past year reading monster stories, so it's not entirely surprising.

Anyway, I agree that it might have been nice to have a little more emphasis on the nature of golems, rather than just including them as an element, but I didn't mind when I was listening. My favorite part was def Norm's fawn voice.

This was a fun story, even though it was sad. I loved the two little golems and the dog, very cute. The fantasy world set in suburbia was novel I thought, and would like to see more stories set in this neighborhood, maybe from the Dwarf's perspective, or the Orgre's boyfriend (what purpose did he have in the story anyways?) or others.

Good story. As someone pointed out it wasn't greatly different in events from a neighbor's dog story, but to me changing dogs to golems still made the story new and interesting again because a golem is a made creature and a golem's keeper is not only responsible for caretaking but they are the one who made the golem as they are.